A randomized controlled trial: Comparison of one-per-mil tumescent technique and tourniquet in surgery for burn hand contracture in creating clear operative field and assessment of functional outcome

BackgroundThis study aims to compare the use of one-per-mil tumescent solution (a mixture of epinephrine and 0.2% lidocaine in a ratio of 1:1,000,000 in normal saline solution) and tourniquet to create clear operative fields and to evaluate the functional outcomes after post burn hand contracture surgery.MethodsThe subjects of this randomized controlled trial were divided into one-permil tumescent technique and tourniquet group for a similar surgical procedure. Three independent assessors evaluated the clarity of the operative fields through recorded videos for the first 15 min and the first 10-minute of each hour of the surgery. Functional outcome was evaluated at least three months postoperatively using total active and passive motion (TAM and TPM) of each digit. Malondialdehyde (MDA) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were tested during baseline (5 min before the procedures), ischemia phase, and reperfusion phase (a phase when the blood flow returned to the tissue).Results35 subjects were included in this study: 17 in the tumescent group and 18 in the tourniquet group. We found a significant difference in the clarity of operative field between tumescent and tourniquet groups, 5 vs 35 bloodless operative fields, respectively (p < 0.05). TAM and TPM of each digit before surgery and 3 months postoperatively showed no significant difference between both groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found no difference in MDA and TNF-α levels between both groups at their respective phases.ConclusionsThe use of one-per-mil tumescent technique does not replace tourniquet use to create bloodless operative fields in burned hand contracture surgery. However, the postoperative functional results were similar in both groups showing that tumescent technique can be used as an alternative to tourniquet without compromising outcomes. The MDA and TNF-α examinations do not provide conclusive outcomes regarding ischemia and reperfusion injury.     

多体素1H-MRS对脑胶质瘤、转移瘤及脑脓肿的鉴别诊断研究

目的 探讨多体素氢质子磁共振波谱（^1H-MRS）在脑胶质瘤、单发转移瘤、体积较大脑脓肿鉴别诊断中的应用价值及胶质瘤瘤体周围的微观结构的改变。资料与方法 搜集脑胶质瘤26例、单发转移瘤9例、大体积脑脓肿4例，均行^1H-MRS检查。比较脑胶质瘤与单发转移瘤瘤体及瘤周胆碱（Cho）／N-乙酰天门冬氨酸（NAA）、Cho／肌酐类物质（Cr）、NAA／Cr值的差别，并做统计学分析；用HE染色、免疫组织化学、电镜检查等重点观察胶质瘤瘤周微观结构改变。结果 各个级别的胶质瘤与单发转移瘤瘤体之间Cho／NAA值分别为3．14±1．61和2．46±0．83，Cho／Cr值分别为2．57±0．93和2．90±1．93、NAA／Cr值分别为0．96±0．53和1．21±0．80，差异均无明显统计学意义（P值均〉0．05）；而瘤周之间的上述比值为1．74±0．98和0．98±0．23，1．72±0．51和1．09±0．35．1．11±0．30和1．11±0．25，除NAA／Cr外均有明显统计学意义（P值〈0．05）。脑脓肿内部出现特征性波谱，扩散加权成像（DWI）上脓腔显示为高信号。胶质瘤瘤周在光镜及电镜下发现已有瘤细胞浸润。结论 使用多体素^1H-MRS结合常规MRI可鉴别胶质瘤、单发转移瘤、不典型脑脓肿，胶质瘤的瘤细胞可以通过毛细血管转移浸润至瘤周。     

GM6001的玻璃体代谢及视网膜毒性作用的研究

目的：评价人工合成的金属蛋白酶抑制剂GM6001在玻璃体中的代谢及其眼内安全性。方法：选择健康成年的青紫蓝兔16只，随机分成4组，右眼分别玻璃体房注射GM6001各0．05mL（A组100μmol、B组75μmol、C组50μmol和D组25μmol）。左眼分别注射PBS0．05mL作为对照。各组术后不同时间取玻璃体样本，应用高效液相色谱分析仪检测其中GM6001的浓度。术前术后进行裂隙灯、间接检眼镜和视网膜电图（ERG）检查，最后处死动物对视网膜进行光镜及透射电镜的检查。结果：术后前3d，玻璃体房GM6001浓度下降迅速，而后保持缓慢降低至术后28d完全清除。术后裂隙灯、间接检眼镜、ERG检查、视网膜光镜及透射电镜观察，各组均未发现异常改变。结论：GM6001在玻璃体房注射对视网膜是安全的。GM6001在单次玻璃体房注射后2wk可维持有效浓度。     

彩色多普勒和磁共振对健康人颅内动脉影像学的比较研究

目的通过彩色多普勒和磁共振血管成像对健康人颅内动脉的检测,初步确定其操作规范及衡量标准。方法正常人200例,按照检查方法分为彩色多普勒血流显像(ColourDopplerFlowImaging,CDFI)组及磁共振血管成像(MagneticReso-nanceAngiography,MRA)组。CDFI组观察大脑中动脉(MiddleCerebralArtery,MCA)、椎动脉(VertebralArtery,VA)各段的血流动力学改变和相应点的血流束内径。MRA组检测相应血管对应部位的血管内径。结果同一条血管不同位置的血流速率有差异(P<0.05);同名血管相应位置的血流速率左侧略高于右侧,女组高于男组,但无统计学意义(P>0.05)。按年龄分组,相邻组间无显著性差异,相隔组间有显著性差异。CDFI所测血流束内径较MRA所测血管内径值偏高,且P<0.05,差异有显著性。结论a)应用CDFI能显示MCA,VA走行,可检测血管的血流动力学的改变。b)要提高临床脑血管疾病诊断的准确性,必须有规范的临床操作和可靠的检测指标。c)对血管内径的测量MRA更佳。     

四类抗感染药物不良反应相关因素的探讨与分析

目的：使输液疗法中药物不良反应降到最低限度，使患者获得安全、有效的治疗，同时，也是对有限药物资源的维护。方法：对用四类抗感染药物出现不良反应91例患者行减慢输液速度、平卧、松解领扣、按合谷穴、心理护理、保暖、进饮食等处置。结果：91例药物不良反应，有89例顺利完成输液治疗，2例无效，更换药物。结论：有责任感，加强观察护理及时发现患者反应前驱症状，迅速采取有效措施，会取得满意效果。     

运动对骨质疏松的影响

本研究对运动影响骨质疏松的机制,运动对骨代谢、骨生物力学、骨密度的影响的研究现状与进展进行综述,可为骨质疏松症的预防和治疗提供理论参考资料。